Texas power prices briefly soar to $9,000/MWh as heat wave bakes state

facts.

You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly.

What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks t he nit.

How?

d, but only 2 here. BTW, have you figured out how to use Google yet?

You tell us that there are 50 under construction, but since you demonstrabl y can't use google, you've not provided us with any link to your "evidence" which is very likely to be fifty links to the two reactors that are still being constructed in the US despite turning out to be much too expensive to ever make money.

lved in price a few years ago, and suddenly became a lot more economically attractive.

st certainly halve again, and make them even more economically attractive.

hey funded the Tea Party movement,

using their money to "buy" the Democratic Party.

Because it's not a claim I've ever heard anybody remotely sane make. The Ko ch brothers spent enough that the US tax office got interested, and James A rthur posted here about being pestered by them and forced to prove that the Koch brothers had spent enough on lawyers to make the project legal (which doesn't show the American legal system in a good light).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman
Loading thread data ...

ts.

Proponents of non-renewable power sources cite the issues with the lack of reliability of availability. But the real issue is the poor match between availability and the loading. Nuclear has the same problem. Nukes have to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for economic rea sons. They are just too expensive to run up and down with demand resulting in less than 50% duty cycle.

So the idea of wildly increasing the contribution of nuclear to our total e nergy production is at face value fallacious. We might be able to reach 40 % of our peak generation capacity. I checked the data for the region inclu ding Pennsylvania and the max usage was around 140 GW and the minimum was a bout 73 GW, that's 2:1. Trying to use nuclear for even half that supply wo uld be risky since it would mean finding a way to dump a lot power should s omething go offline. But then nuke plants are inherently inefficient dumpi ng twice the amount of heat as they turn into electricity, so maybe it woul dn't be a big deal to dump 100%. Just very expensive.

So while we could increase our reliance on nuclear power, we can't solve th e carbon problem with it. I suppose we could connect massive amounts of en ergy storage and add even further to the already high cost of nuclear.

--
  Rick C. 

  --+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

he facts.

8% and rising rapidly.

the nit.

Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world.

rld, but only 2 here. BTW, have you figured out how to use Google yet?

bly can't use google,

ROFL

Typical for a dishonest, lying lib. Project on to others what you yourself are actually doing. It's clear that you are the fool who either won't use G oogle or is just lying and trolling again.

you've not provided us with any link to your "evidence" which is very likel y to be fifty links to the two reactors that are still being constructed in the US despite turning out to be much too expensive to ever make money.

halved in price a few years ago, and suddenly became a lot more economicall y attractive.

most certainly halve again, and make them even more economically attractive .

they funded the Tea Party movement,

er using their money to "buy" the Democratic Party.

That's either because you are lying again or drinking Kool-aid from stupid, totally biased sources.

The Koch brothers spent enough that the US tax office got interested, and J ames Arthur posted here about being pestered by them and forced to prove th at the Koch brothers had spent enough on lawyers to make the project legal (which doesn't show the American legal system in a good light).

KOCH, KOCH, KOCH! But George Soros, Tom Steyer and other ultra libs do the same and no issues there, in fact you deny, deny, deny. Stupid lying lib.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

e 8% and rising rapidly.

ks the nit.

he world.

What fifty nuclear plants?

world, but only 2 here. BTW, have you figured out how to use Google yet?

rably can't use google,

As opposed to logging on and finding a link that listed those fifty station s. That would work better than rolling around on the floor, but while you m ay have mastered rolling around on the floor, anything more intellectually demanding is inaccessible.

f are actually doing. It's clear that you are the fool who either won't use Google or is just lying and trolling again.

Trader4 hasn't noticed that I googled the link the made the point that his figure for nuclear component in US power generation was incomplete and misl eading. He hasn't even bothered to snip it out of his response.

He doesn't even try to disguise his stupidity, probably because he doesn't realise quite how obvious it is.

ely to be fifty links to the two reactors that are still being constructed in the US despite turning out to be much too expensive to ever make money.

s halved in price a few years ago, and suddenly became a lot more economica lly attractive.

almost certainly halve again, and make them even more economically attracti ve.

en they funded the Tea Party movement,

eyer using their money to "buy" the Democratic Party.

d, totally biased sources.

I leave the stupid, totally biassed, sources to you. You recycle them with gullible enthusiasm.

James Arthur posted here about being pestered by them and forced to prove that the Koch brothers had spent enough on lawyers to make the project lega l (which doesn't show the American legal system in a good light).

he same and no issues there, in fact you deny, deny, deny.

You may think they do, but you believe any numbers of things that don't hap pen to be true.

A little wishful thinking there. Trader4 isn't up to any kind of more deman ding thinking - if he doesn't share an opinion he wants it to be a lie.

Sadly, what he wants and what the real world will deliver aren't closely co nnected.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

Ask your butt buddy, DL. He can use Google and found them. Stupid lib. Just like all the libs, they want someone else to do the work for them, they are helpless. Well, DL just did the work for you!

Next!

Reply to
Whoey Louie

He found 53, not fifty, and pointed out that quite a few of them were research reactors. A few more are going to be exclusively used for making medical isotopes - there's one small reactor in the Netherlands that does nothing else.

You are relying on sloppy second hand information that has gotten even less reliable once it's passed through your feeble excuse for comprehension.

I'm not going to take you seriously enough even to look.

He found reactors under construction, not power reactors under construction. It isn't the job you claim to have done, and clearly didn't.

Make all the fuss you like. You are a dim-wit, and advertise your defects every time I give you the opportunity to claim you know what you are talking about.

You are slow at waking up to what an ass you make of yourself, but even with somebody as dim as you, the penny eventually drops.

Trader4 needs another pratfall.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

ROFL! I say 50, showing that nuclear is viable and being built in other countries, DL says it's 53 and now you have the balls like him to say I'm wrong, because I said 50? ROFL. You're amazing. Fifty or fifty three, who the hell cares, except a troll like you. My point is

100% correct.

And DL didn't say "quite a few' were research, he said some. So, let's recap your lying lib methods I said there were

50 nuclear power reactors currently under construction and 50 more in the planning stages. DL claims that I'm wrong, it's actually 53, as if that nit matters. Now, IDK what he added beyond the fifty POWER reactors, neither do you and I don't care. But now you take his increased number which may include three research reactors on top of the 50 POWER reactors, and try to use that to claim that I'm wrong/ Your lying, shystering lib methods never stop.

One more time. There are 50 nuclear power plants under construction worldwide, with 50 more in the planning stages showing that contrary to your stupid claims, they are being built. All your BS can't change that.

ROFL. You're the dope that can't use Google and asks others to do it for you. And then talk about information sources, you just used data in a post from DL as a source! And even that wasn't good enough, you had to lie about what he posted on top of that.

Which explains how stupid libs like you stay so ignorant. You've made about 5 posts on this now, but you won't spend one minute to find out the truth. Thanks for representing for the libs!

Reply to
Whoey Louie

acts.

f reliability of availability. But the real issue is the poor match betwee n availability and the loading. Nuclear has the same problem. Nukes have to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for economic r easons.

That's not true and MIT says so. In fact they say they are good for being able to vary demand as needed by solar and wind. You know, like when clouds show up?

formatting link

Nuclear power plants generally operate at full capacity, but they are also technically capable of more flexible operation. This capability lets them r espond dynamically to seasonal changes in demand or hourly changes in marke t prices. Reactors could also provide the standby backup regulation and res erve services needed to balance supply and demand. According to Jenkins, al l reactor designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, and Euro pe are capable of flexible operation, as are many older reactors now in ser vice.

ess than 50% duty cycle.

Even if that were true, we can use nuclear for the stable base load. What runs up and down, is solar and wind, you know, like when a cloud shows up.

energy production is at face value fallacious.

BS. MIT says so. And even if it were true, we could use nuclear for a lot more than 20%. And shouldn't we? The climate change folks say the planet is doomed if we don't cut CO2, nuclear does that in a big and real way. After two decades of talk and actually putting up a lot of solar, a whopping 1.6% of our power comes from solar.

We might be able to reach 40% of our peak generation capacity. I checked the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the max usage was aroun d 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW, that's 2:1. Trying to use nuclea r for even half that supply would be risky since it would mean finding a wa y to dump a lot power should something go offline. But then nuke plants ar e inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they turn into electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to dump 100%. Just very e xpensive.

the carbon problem with it.

Then we should chuck solar and wind too, because they have far more serious limitations. And at 1.6% of power from solar after all the harping, all the subsidies, screwing the poor with higher electric bills, it sure hasn't done much.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

e:

rote:

rote:

talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

bles were 8% and rising rapidly.

and picks the nit.

around the world.

esearch reactors. A few more are going to be exclusively used for making me dical isotopes - there's one small reactor in the Netherlands that does not hing else.

You said fifty power reactors, DL said 53 reactors in total, including an u nspecified number of research reactors, and I pointed out that reactors use d to produce medical isotopes might show up in such a list too.

What that reveals is that you don't appreciate that there is more than one kind of nuclear reactor, which devalues your under-informed opinion even fu rther.

You'd have looked less like an idiot if you had taken that point on board.

In fact you've made it clear that you have read some half-baked claim somew here, and have been recycling it as an indisputable fact ever since.

You are 100% twit.

"Some" and "a few" aren't specific enough to be worth differentiating.

He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a distincti on that you seem to recognise.

But you should.

actors on top of the 50 POWER reactors, and try to use that to claim that I 'm wrong.

Why three? "Some" could definitely be more than three. "A few" might not be .

Your "fifty" power reactors is a suspiciously round number and the addition al fifty planned reactors is even more obviously rounded off.

Your brainless promotion of other people's rhetoric is earning you the cont empt you deserve. Complaining about being jeered at may make you happier, b ut no less contemptible.

Trader4 demonstrates his faith in argument by persistent reiteration. Asser ting what you claim to be facts when you won't - and probably can't - provi de links to some source with any credibility at all isn't going to get anyb ody to take you seriously. At this point any link that you did provide woul d become suspect just because you'd espoused it.

less reliable once it's passed through your feeble excuse for comprehension .

Since I clearly can use Google, and have done in this thread, this is obvio us nonsense. What I want is for you to reveal the source of your misappreh ensions.

I know I can do Google searches that work. I'm getting progressively more c onfident that you can't.

Really? It clearly didn't mean to me what you decided that it meant to you

- you still haven't taken on board the fact that research reactors aren't p ower reactors, and that reactors that make medical isotopes might not be ei ther.

We aren't ignorant, We just don't share your favourite delusions.

You may want to see it as ignorance, but in fact we are well aware of the f alse "facts" twits like you chose to believe, and have skills - which you l ack - which enable us to include them in our rather more complete views of the world (which does include the possibility that we can get stuff wrong f rom time to time, which people like you, krw and Cursitor Doom seem to excl ude).

I know what you think is "the truth". Pity about that.

Thanks for representing the gullible idiots. You make the species look even more contemptible with every brainlessly repetitious post.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

Your point is 100% wishful thinking. If you had a little more sense you might be aware of the fact.

Fifty reactors was always a suspiciously round number. Fifty more being planned even more so.

You want to imagine that his 53 planned reactors include exactly three research reactors? No surprise there. You probably are wrong - and your habit of jumping to convenient conclusions has been exposed one more time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

er

of reliability of availability. But the real issue is the poor match betw een availability and the loading. Nuclear has the same problem. Nukes hav e to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for economic reasons.

g

so technically capable of more flexible operation. This capability lets the m respond dynamically to seasonal changes in demand or hourly changes in ma rket prices. Reactors could also provide the standby backup regulation and reserve services needed to balance supply and demand. According to Jenkins, all reactor designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, and E urope are capable of flexible operation, as are many older reactors now in service."

less than 50% duty cycle.

Bit it's expensive, so why would we?

So you need power storage, and an extended grid so that clouds showing up i n one place will be compensated by clouds going away from another.

That means high voltage DC links - geographic averaging only works well ove r long distances.

al energy production is at face value fallacious.

MIT says that reactors can be run at lower full output. They don't go into the economics of running a very expensive (lots of invested capital) nuclea r reactor at less than full power for a lot of the time.

ked the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the max usage was ar ound 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW, that's 2:1. Trying to use nuc lear for even half that supply would be risky since it would mean finding a way to dump a lot power should something go offline. But then nuke plants are inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they turn i nto electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to dump 100%. Just ver y expensive.

As the MIT study says, you can use control rods to adjust the actual amount of fission going on in the reactor. Not all neutron captures lead to immed iate fission, and consequent immediate neutron emissions. The half-lives of the eventual neutron emitters are around several minutes (which is what ma kes fission reactors controllable) the and the moderators in the pile slow down fast neutrons (about 20,000 km/sec) to about 2.7km/sec making them mor e likely to be captured, so rapid adjustment of the heat coming out isn't a n option.

e the carbon problem with it.

This is a remarkably fatuous non-argument, even by Trader4's abysmally low standards.

Solar and wind now supply 8% of the US electricity demand, and the proporti on is rising rapidly.

Trader4 doesn't seem to be aware of the consequences of economies of scale.

Anything that you can mass produce gets cheaper if you can produce it in hi gher volume. Typically a factor of ten scale up in production volume halves the unit price.

This has happened twice with solar cells in recent years. Germany invested a lot in higher volume production about twenty years ago, and China trumped them about a decade later. The Chinese effort made solar cells cheap enoug h that they could compete with conventional power generation in favourable locations, and they now account for 1% of global electricity production, an d the proportion is rising rapidly.

By the time the proportion hits 10% the unit price of solar cells will have halved again, and they will be competitive power sources pretty much anywh ere.

Wind turbines are also getting cheaper, but a lot of their cost is the towe r that that supports the blades and the generator, so the advantages of mas s production aren't quite as dramatic.

The world is changing rapidly and Trader4 can't see it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

er

facts.

of reliability of availability. But the real issue is the poor match betw een availability and the loading. Nuclear has the same problem. Nukes hav e to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for economic reasons.

g

o technically capable of more flexible operation. This capability lets them respond dynamically to seasonal changes in demand or hourly changes in mar ket prices. Reactors could also provide the standby backup regulation and r eserve services needed to balance supply and demand. According to Jenkins, all reactor designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, and Eu rope are capable of flexible operation, as are many older reactors now in s ervice.

less than 50% duty cycle.

al energy production is at face value fallacious.

You didn't even read what I wrote. MIT is talking about the technical limi tations of nuclear reactors. I said the "economic" issues because they are so expensive they have to be run flat out to be affordable. Gas plants ar e very inexpensive to build and the lion's share of the cost in running the m is the fuel. Stop running them and your fuel cost goes to zero. So for variable load you use gas, for base load you use nuclear... if it is still affordable even then. No one has to spend many billions of dollars or take a decade to build a gas power plant or any other type either. Just nuclea r.

ed the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the max usage was aro und 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW, that's 2:1. Trying to use nucl ear for even half that supply would be risky since it would mean finding a way to dump a lot power should something go offline. But then nuke plants are inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they turn in to electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to dump 100%. Just very expensive.

e the carbon problem with it.

You still don't get it. The issue with solar and wind is variability in su pply which can be mitigated with storage. I suppose you can mitigate the i nflexibility of nuclear with storage too, but not the high price tag.

--
  Rick C. 

  -+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Nearly all power plants now also have gas turbine boost gen sets for demand response.

Some generate purely from gas turbines

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

No, what all that proves is I was right and you two are pathetically nit picking, obfuscating and being shysters, as usual. Hello? The claim was made that no one was building nuclear power plants anywhere any more because they are economically not viable. I stated there were 50 under construction, I was right. Case closed. Maybe you could learn to use Google instead of embarrassing yourself? Instead you just prove how libs lie and lie.

Rest of your BS flushed! Ah, the air is so much better here now.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

Oh my! What if it's actually 47 or 53? Who the hell cares? The claim was made that there are no new nuclear power plants being built and that was WRONG. You really are quite an amazing piece of work.

And there you go again. He didn't say there were 53 'planned", he said there were 53 being BUILT. He later posted that there are

50 MORE in the planning stages. Compare that to what I said from the start. I said 50 under construction, 50 more in the planning stages. I was right, but you just drone on, nit pick, twist, lie and turn.

did you figure out how Google works yet, fool?

Reply to
Whoey Louie

r

ut

fter

he facts.

ck of reliability of availability. But the real issue is the poor match be tween availability and the loading. Nuclear has the same problem. Nukes h ave to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for econom ic reasons.

ing

lso technically capable of more flexible operation. This capability lets th em respond dynamically to seasonal changes in demand or hourly changes in m arket prices. Reactors could also provide the standby backup regulation and reserve services needed to balance supply and demand. According to Jenkins , all reactor designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, and Europe are capable of flexible operation, as are many older reactors now in service.

in less than 50% duty cycle.

otal energy production is at face value fallacious.

mitations of nuclear reactors. I said the "economic" issues because they a re so expensive they have to be run flat out to be affordable.

BS. MIT was proposing nuclear power plants as being compatible with being used in conjunction with alternate power production today. It would be pretty stupid to be writing that if economics makes it impossible.

in running them is the fuel.

Last time I checked we were supposed to stop using them, because they are killing the planet.

Stop running them and your fuel cost goes to zero.

Stop running a nuke and your fuel cost goes to zero too.

Sure, but we're supposed to get rid of the nat gas, AOC says the world will end in ten years. In which case having nuclear there when it's cloudy or night, is perfectly viable. Just ask the

50 operators that are building them right now or the 50 others in the planning stages. I would expect with their $$$ on the line they have a better understanding of the viability than you do.

. if it is still affordable even then. No one has to spend many billions o f dollars or take a decade to build a gas power plant or any other type eit her. Just nuclear.

cked the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the max usage was a round 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW, that's 2:1. Trying to use nu clear for even half that supply would be risky since it would mean finding a way to dump a lot power should something go offline. But then nuke plant s are inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they turn into electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to dump 100%. Just ve ry expensive.

lve the carbon problem with it.

supply which can be mitigated with storage.

Oh BS. The ability to use storage is very limited. You can only do it in special cases, eg hydro, where you can use an existing lake or create a new reservoir. And when you try to do that, the same tree huggers that block everything will be there complaining about the impact to some frog and they will try to block it.

, but not the high price tag.

That's silly. Per MIT, just turn the dial back.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

her

out

after

the facts.

lack of reliability of availability. But the real issue is the poor match between availability and the loading. Nuclear has the same problem. Nukes have to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for econ omic reasons.

being

also technically capable of more flexible operation. This capability lets them respond dynamically to seasonal changes in demand or hourly changes in market prices. Reactors could also provide the standby backup regulation a nd reserve services needed to balance supply and demand. According to Jenki ns, all reactor designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, an d Europe are capable of flexible operation, as are many older reactors now in service.

g in less than 50% duty cycle.

total energy production is at face value fallacious.

limitations of nuclear reactors. I said the "economic" issues because they are so expensive they have to be run flat out to be affordable.

d

It's not impossible. It's impractical. That's why so many plants here in the US are NOT happening. Two reactors in South Carolina totally failed af ter spending 2 BILLION dollars!!!

Dominion got approval for a new reactor at North Anna after spending half a billion dollars on the paperwork. Now they have no plans to actually buil d the reactor because they aren't willing to take the risk. Why do you ign ore the facts?

st in running them is the fuel.

I'm pointing out the difference in economics that makes MIT's idea of load following nukes a bad idea. Paying for nukes can't work if you don't keep then running full bore and even then it is questionable. So no one is goin g to throttle back a nuke. Try to keep up with the conversation rather tha n just trying to argue every little point.

Now that I have your attention, maybe you can understand the issue. Gas pl ants can be throttled back or even shut down entirely and still be practica l because most of the cost is the fuel. Nukes have tremendous capital cost s which have to be amortize over as much of their operating life as possibl e while also having very significant non-operating costs.

Yep, get rid of both nukes and fossil fuels is the idea.

BTW, AOC never said the world will end in 10 years. That comment was taken out of context. If you continue to believe that is what she said, you are just being silly and clearly don't wish to actually discuss an issue ratio nally.

Actually, nukes are often built as a symbol of prestige or in other cases t o allow the country to be involved in the nuclear industry in order to even tually work toward nuclear weapons.

BTW, I recall some weeks ago Iran announced an end to observing the enrichm ent limit under the treaty the US seems to saying is void. Do you really t hing Iran has nuke capabilities because they need the electricity???

of dollars or take a decade to build a gas power plant or any other type e ither. Just nuclear.

hecked the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the max usage was around 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW, that's 2:1. Trying to use nuclear for even half that supply would be risky since it would mean findin g a way to dump a lot power should something go offline. But then nuke pla nts are inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they tur n into electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to dump 100%. Just very expensive.

solve the carbon problem with it.

n supply which can be mitigated with storage.

Hmmm... if you start with the idea that something is impossible, then you w ill have a hard time understanding why it works.

Storage is happening and growing. That's a natural fact. Check out the 10

0 MW storage facility Tesla built for Australia. Look up the many other ex amples that have been built and are being built. It's happening whether or not you think it is a good idea. Duh!

oo, but not the high price tag.

Turn the dial back but keep sending out the bills since some 70% of your co sts are still active.

"The US Nuclear Energy Institute suggests that the cost of fuel for a coal- fired plant is 78% of total costs, for a gas-fired plant the figure is 87%, and for nuclear the uranium is about 14% (or 34% if all front end and wast e management costs are included)."

Are you actually interested in learning about this or do you just have an a genda?

BTW, I learn a lot in these discussions. I have to get the real facts when discussing things with someone like you since you so often go off half coc ked.

--
  Rick C. 

  -++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

You are still convinced you are right, which comes as no surprise.

The problem is that you haven't told us where your claim that the are fifty reactors under construction came from, and you persist in imagining that your unsupported opinion is worth posting. This persistence makes your opinion worthless.

You claim that Google would support your point of view, but you are totally incapable of demonstrating the point, and evade the issue by claiming that everybody except you is lying.

Trader4 does like the smell of his own BS.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

If you don't care about the exact numbers - and can't tell us where they came from - any number you do claim is unreliable.

If you aren't paying attention to exact numbers, and exactly what kind of nuclear reactor is being planned or built, you input is worthless - as has been obvious for quite some time now.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

her calamities like the proponents claim, them we should be going all out on nu clear right now. Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

lack of reliability of availability. But the real issue is the poor match between availability and the loading. Nuclear has the same problem. Nukes have to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for econ omic reasons.

being

e also technically capable of more flexible operation. This capability lets them respond dynamically to seasonal changes in demand or hourly changes i n market prices. Reactors could also provide the standby backup regulation and reserve services needed to balance supply and demand. According to Jenk ins, all reactor designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, a nd Europe are capable of flexible operation, as are many older reactors now in service."

g in less than 50% duty cycle.

total energy production is at face value fallacious.

limitations of nuclear reactors. I said the "economic" issues because they are so expensive they have to be run flat out to be affordable.

d

Academics do this all the time. "Technically capable" doesn't say anything about economic feasibility.

st in running them is the fuel.

Raising atmospheric CO2 levels, which isn't remotely killing the planet, bu t isn't doing anything good for our food production, and may end up killing a lot of us (which wouldn't do the planet any noticeable harm).

Looking after the very radioactive nuclear reactor and the equally radioact ive spent fuel continues to be expensive long after you've stopped using a nuclear reactor to generate power. That's what has been making nuclear elec tric power generators progressively less attractive as the regulators get p ickier about the arrangements to deal with what's left over after the react or has been shut down.

Since we still haven't got any acceptable scheme for dealing with long term waste, the price seems likely to keep on rising for while yet.

She didn't. She was putting words into the mouth of an imagined dim milleni al.

You are much too dim to appreciate the distinction. She set the threshold a t the social intelligence of a sea cucumber, and you clearly fall short of that.

So identify them, so we can ask them.

In the meantime, they are just part of your imaginary chorus of non-existen t operators, invented in the vain hope making you sound convincing.

If they exist. Since you can't point to any of them, and the US operators w ho are trying to construct new reactors are financial disaster areas, it ma y be that the reason that they have put their hypothetical dollars on the l ine is they don't have a good grasp of the financial viability of the proje cts.

of dollars or take a decade to build a gas power plant or any other type e ither. Just nuclear.

They don't have to. Other power plants tend to be a lot cheaper. Though the Three Gorges Dam in China did cost $31 billion.

Hydroelectric plants do have to be scaled to match the local geology.

formatting link

formatting link

n supply which can be mitigated with storage.

The ability to use storage is the ability to buy more of it. Pumped water s torage does depend on geology. Battery storage doesn't.

formatting link

pointed out - back in 2008 - that if everybody moved over to electric cars, the batteries in those cars would provide enough back-up for the entire ut ility grid. It wasn't an original idea then, but this is the first appearan ce I know of in a popular book

Private cars spend 95% of their time parked, and currently generate in the US - when they are moving - about 30% of the power available on the US nati onal grid (which is going to have to be enlarged to meet the demand as elec tric cars get more popular.

If you run the numbers, the parked cars could deliver three times as much p ower as the beefed up grid, and deliver it for several hours. Rick C didn't like the idea when it showed up here, because it doesn't fit with the way he uses his car, but it would suite me fine.

oo, but not the high price tag.

Sadly, this doesn't make the capital investment in the nuclear reactor any cheaper. At present they aren't price competitive when run flat out, and un der-running them isn't going to make the capital any cheaper to service.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.